Voting rights bills and lawsuits megathread (Updated: April 27th 2020)

[KingSweden]

Virginia,

What are your thoughts on WV, where my understanding is they passed voter ID paired with automatic voter registration?

[KingSweden]

Virginia,

What are your thoughts on WV, where my understanding is they passed voter ID paired with automatic voter registration?

Not as against it as my usual positions might suggest. I wrote a thread about it prior to the creation of this one:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=232083.0

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I stated, I'm not against voter ID in principle, but until basically everyone has an acceptable form of ID or actual in-person voter fraud becomes a huge problem, I can't support voter ID - particularly photo ID requirements. What WV did was pretty reasonable, and is the kind of voter ID law I'd support if one had to be passed. My beef with voter ID laws is that they tend to be strict photo ID requirements specifically designed to reduce Democratic turnout. There are better ways to protect against in-person fraud than requiring photo IDs, but of course Republicans aren't passing these laws because of fraud. That's just their "official/public" excuse.

Plus, when voter ID must be passed, I would insist it be paired with another pro-voter access service/regulation that would offset the drop in turnout that voter ID can cause. That is why I liked West Virginia's law. Usually Republicans don't do that, and they actually could have in WV but choose to be decent about it. For now, anyway.

I think it's the best compromise in non-all mail voting states

[KingSweden]

Despite the nakedly partisan shenanigans here, I do think it's insane NC has a BoE structured the way it does

[KingSweden]

Andrew Cuomo proposes same day voter registartion, early voting, and automatic voter registration via the DMV in New York.

If there is any state in need of a serious elections law overhaul, it is NY

[KingSweden]

Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate pushes voter ID plan, but resists photo ID requirement

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/12/voter-id-plan-isnt-aimed-election-fraud-pate-says/96504508/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

His plan sounds more reasonable, and it is nice to see a Republican not insisting on photo IDs for once. If his plan really does call for reaching out to most people without IDs and providing them one suited for voting, then that is something I can get on board with.

However, how much sway does he really have in this debate? He is the state SoS, and legislators can just pass their photo ID requirements regardless of what he thinks. Anyway, we'll see!

This actually seems pretty reasonable.

[KingSweden]

I'm getting the feeling the Supreme Court, especially Kennedy, is getting sick of these redistricting cases and might be willing to call partisan gerrymandering unconstitutional as a means to try to end them. Fingers crossed in the Wisconsin case.

I'm 100% sure that Kennedy will rule in favor...I also think Roberts might too

Today's Virginia case was 8-0...that definitely bodes well

I also do think, though, that the jurisprudential endgame is to curtail VRA districts as unconstitutional, just a theory

[KingSweden]

I'm getting the feeling the Supreme Court, especially Kennedy, is getting sick of these redistricting cases and might be willing to call partisan gerrymandering unconstitutional as a means to try to end them. Fingers crossed in the Wisconsin case.

I'm 100% sure that Kennedy will rule in favor...I also think Roberts might too

Today's Virginia case was 8-0...that definitely bodes well

I also do think, though, that the jurisprudential endgame is to curtail VRA districts as unconstitutional, just a theory

I'm ok with that if it kills gerrymandering. The end of gerrymandering could diffuse the extreme political polarization we have in the long run. People like Chafass or Pelosi would not be so quick to engage in the hackery they've been engaging in because they know they have a forever safe seat

I agree that gerrymandering, more than donations or lobbyist money, is what ails our politics more than anything else.

[KingSweden]

I'm getting the feeling the Supreme Court, especially Kennedy, is getting sick of these redistricting cases and might be willing to call partisan gerrymandering unconstitutional as a means to try to end them. Fingers crossed in the Wisconsin case.

Lol. That would mean twice as many cases!

Be careful what you wish for. The great champion Clarence Thomas has called for the full repeal of Thornburg v Gingles, which would actually accomplish your stated goal.

MMD's seem like they could get out of control quickly

[KingSweden]

Ideally we'd have something like Elections Canada where partisanship, incumbency and racial demos don't come into play, but I think sadly we're too far down the rabbit hole at this point

[KingSweden]

There needs to be a Constitutional Amendment that federalizes all election procedures and puts a genuinely independent commission in charge.

Ironically, Reagan (and Jesse Helms IIRC) wanted to extend preclearance nationwide when the VRA was renewed in the 1980s

[KingSweden]

North Carolina ID Law is dead!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very interesting...I was always under the impression that Roberts wanted to totally gut the VRA

Heh what if it was Gorsuch

[KingSweden]

Automatic voter registration unanimously passed the IL House today and will return to the Senate for concurrence on the House amendment which became the bill.

Why is everyone (including Rauner) game for this version and not the last one?

[KingSweden]

Automatic voter registration unanimously passed the IL House today and will return to the Senate for concurrence on the House amendment which became the bill.

Why is everyone (including Rauner) game for this version and not the last one?

The first version was essentially based on the idea that this is a great progressive idea and we ought to pass it. It couldn't be implemented as passed, and likely violated federal law to boot. The current version is based on the idea that we can make the voting process more efficient and secure, especially in light of polling places crowded last year with election day registrants and a state election data base hacked last year exposing over 100 K records.

The Senate has concurred with the amendment and it is on its way to the Gov.

Got it, thanks. AVR I think is a great idea all around for simplicity, IMO.

[KingSweden]

==================================================================================
Abbott signs relaxed voter ID, end of straight-party voting into law
==================================================================================

http://www.statesman.com/news/abbott-signs-voter-end-straight-party-voting-into-law/5vb95W3p0406a5mRgysEyL/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Honestly, that is a voter ID bill I could get behind, save for the absurd felony provision.

Yeah this is honestly not that bad by Southern GOP standards

[KingSweden]

I actually don't agree. Avr is a operations mess

How? All it does is automate something that previously required some input from people (although some versions of it still require a modicum of input). Otherwise I can't possibly see why you would say this.

It is only a mess so long as the design and basic implementation is a mess. The idea itself is solid, and there is no reason it couldn't be implemented smoothly.

Word. Voting is a right that should be available to all law-abiding citizens. It should not be controversial to make it easy for anyone who wishes to vote to do so

[KingSweden]

krazen-style counter-narrative Fiendish Republicans attempt to nullify actual election results by calling for expensive, low-turnout and confusing recall elections whenever the rightful rulers of California do something totally within their power.

The glorious Democrats of the successful state of California are merely attempting to fix the broken recall system, and hopefully more changes are implemented to prevent such blatant partisan games from lowly CA Republicans!

Heh that was pretty good

The Supreme Court will hear a case next term challenging Ohio’s policy of removing inactive voters from the registration rolls: http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/335595-supreme-court-to-hear-ohio-voter-purge-case

The problem is how Ohio implements it. Federal law is you can only remove a voter from the voting rolls for cause - they're dead; they've moved; been convicted of a felony; been declared mentally incompetent. There has to be proof - which there generally is in the case of death, felony conviction, or mental incompetence.

When someone moves, there is not generally proof that they have moved, even if they were evicted, someone saw them move, AND the apartment burnt down. If the voter registers elsewhere in the state, they can be removed. Or if you can make contact with a voter and they confirm they have moved, they can be removed.

Federal law requires an attempt to contact the voter by mail to fail, and that they are then classified as an "inactive voter" for two federal election their registration may be purged. If they show up to vote, they can (no provisional vote is required), and they are also removed from the inactive list.

The term "inactive voter" causes confusion, since it implies someone who just doesn't bother voting very often (e.g a 45 YO whose first vote was cast for Obama in 2008, or Trump in 2016). But so long as they keep receiving mail at their voting residence, they are fine to not vote for the next 40 years. Some states exclude "inactive voters" from the calculation of signatures needed for petitions, reasoning that you shouldn't have to get X% of signatures from voters who have probably moved, or alternatively X+% from voters who appear not to have moved.

Anyhow, Ohio appears to mail out a notice to voters who have not voted in a federal election, and if that is returned as undeliverable, the skipped election counts as the first missed election.

The case is not a constitutional issue at all, but an interpretation of a federal statute.

As a practical matter, it may not matter much. If you didn't vote in 2016, were sent a postcard asking whether you still lived at that address, and it was returned as non-deliverables, and don't vote in 2018; you are pretty unlikely to show up to vote in 2020.

A layman like me would assume a finding for the plaintiffs in this case, then.

[KingSweden]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Remarkable that Bosma is onboard with this. I will say IN's CDs are actually not terrible

[KingSweden]

Seventh Circuit Agrees with Lower Court that Illinois Full-Slate Law is Unconstitutional

http://ballot-access.org/2017/09/23/seventh-circuit-agrees-with-lower-court-that-illinois-full-slate-law-is-unconstitutional/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Christ yeah that's plainly unconstitutional

[KingSweden]

Hmm well I guess Michigan is actually on track to get a redistricting reform initiative on the ballot in 2018:

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/voters_not_politicians_update.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nice!

[KingSweden]

Big news out of NYC lately is that the IDC is finished....hopefully NY will this expand voting laws

Care to expound on this, possibly with sources?

[KingSweden]

PA-07 is pretty bad, but MD-03 is absolutely horrendous.

I think MD-3 is uglier, but PA-7 is a more gerrymandered district.  I’d argue Ohio has a worse gerrymander than MD or PA though (PA is still pretty bad o/c).  MD’s map is ugly, but the idea that it is among the worst partisan gerrymanders is pretty ridiculous.  PA, NC, TX, OH, MI, and arguably even WI are all far worse.  MD is about on par with the gerrymander in IN imo.  The Democrats didn’t even draw an 8-0 map (which they certainly could’ve done).

MD’s map isn’t so much a partisan gerrymander as it is a “keep all this Baltimore guys in the House” gerrymander

White House wants to argue that AVR us unconstitutional:

That argument might hold some water against a law requiring compulsory voting.  But I don't see how it applies to registration; you can still choose not to vote.

Yeah this reads more to me like the WH trying to preempt any state lawmakers from dabbling in AVR by spoiling them from the start

[KingSweden]

PA gerrymandering verdict due out by January 2018....just in time for the-midterms.

One would think that the upcoming SCOTUS decision would circumscribe what the PA state Supreme Court does, or if the PA court rules first, perhaps override some of it.

The PA case is based on the PA Constitution - no federal case has purview

[KingSweden]

BIG, if true

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Whoa!

PA gerrymandering verdict due out by January 2018....just in time for the-midterms.

One would think that the upcoming SCOTUS decision would circumscribe what the PA state Supreme Court does, or if the PA court rules first, perhaps override some of it.

The PA case is based on the PA Constitution - no federal case has purview

Are you sure about that? That is the key point.

I’m quite sure. The GOP appeal to take the case federal was denied and it’s currently being decided by PA state courts

[KingSweden]

FantasySCOTUS, which has a pretty good track record on predicting SCOTUS cases, predicts that gerrymandering will be ruled unconstitutional by a 5 to 4 decision in Gil vs. Whitford

https://fantasyscotus.lexpredict.com/case/list/

My concern is that Roberts might vote with the majority so he can assign himself the opinion and can write as narrow/case-specific a ruling as possible.

That would be the most Roberts thing of all time

[KingSweden]

I’m still surprised GA has AVR